On 4/27/09 7:02 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I don't have any objections, but I just want to point that making
Felix TLP less tied to the Felix framework would imply that the
framework can be referred to as something else than "Apache Felix"
imho.
The discussion about raising visibility of Felix subprojects has
already been raised in the past. I think enhancing the web site is
the first thing to do, but the confustion won't go away easily if
"Apache Felix" refers to both the TLP and the runtime. At least, it's
difficult to emphazise the fact that subprojects are quite independant
of Apache Felix runtime ...
I don't have any good proposition so far about that.
Agreed. It really is the Apache Felix Framework and I do call it that on
occasion when I want to stress the point, but you are right that it
normally gets shortened to just Apache Felix when referring only to the
framework.
Who volunteered to take a stab at rearranging the web site? I think that
would be a good step in the right direction.
-> richard
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:17, Karl Pauls<karlpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we should start with the FELIX infra and then see whether we
need to create a new one when the need is there.
About the package renaming, I'm in favour of going with
org.apache.felix.karaf just because it emphasizes that felix is not
about the framework. If we make an exception then this sends a strange
message IMO.
regards,
Karl
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
On 4/27/09 6:07 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Yes, they do. The definition of a subproject is imho just something
controlled by a given TLP.
The way its infrastructure is set up has nothing to do with that. A
lot of TLP uses multiple JIRA and confluence spaces for different
reasons.
My point was, this subproject is apparently not going to be treated like any
other Felix subproject.
-> richard
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:03, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org>
wrote:
On 4/27/09 5:57 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
It seems the consensus for the code is to move it to
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/trunk/karaf
So i'll go ahead and move the servicemix kernel trunk there asap.
We still need to settle the problems of:
* package name: org.apache.karaf vs org.apache.felix.karaf
* jira issue tracker: use FELIX or create a new KARAF one
* web site: use FELIX or create a new KARAF one
The package renaming to org.apache.karaf has raised a number of
concerns, mostly (correct me if i'm wrong) about the fact whether this
would be frowned upong by the ASF or not. Given the number of
subprojects that do that since a long time, I think the answer is no.
Now we need to decide if we want to do this or not.
For the issue tracker and web site, I think this is somewhat related
to the package renaming issue above, though the problem is a bit
different. I'm really opened here, but if we choose to rename the
packages to org.apache.karaf, it think it would make more sense to
have dedicated JIRA and confluence spaces.
And is this how other projects do it too?
It seems this is a subproject in name only.
-> richard
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 09:26, Guillaume Nodet<gno...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I'd like to start moving the ServiceMix Kernel code into Felix now.
Given the size of the code base, I think it would be better to just
move the tree into its own top level svn structure.
I'd like to run the following command:
svn cp https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/servicemix/smx4/kernel
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/karaf
Any objections in doing that ?
Next steps will include creating a JIRA project and moving all the
issues into it (with a KARAF id), then the confluence space.
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
--
Karl Pauls
karlpa...@gmail.com
